Fractionator Overhead Debottlenecking

CH E 465
4/9/2019

Prepared for: Imperial Oil Ltd.

Joy A. Lebert, P.Eng
Frank Vagi, M.Sc., P.Eng

Prepared by: Team 4

Jonathan Hripko, Student
Nicholas Peitsch, Student
Zameer Dewji, Student
Hin Long Leung, Student
Antoni Sliz, Student
Executive Summary

The FCC fractionator (CC-T-01) at Imperial Oil’s Strathcona refinery is currently restricted

by overhead (O/H) equipment limitations at 70 KBPD total feed. DB Solutions has been contracted

to assess the feasibility of debottlenecking CC-T-01 through O/H equipment modification, with

primary objectives of increasing column throughput and optimizing product placement economics.

The column feed consists of a hydrocarbon and non-condensable gas mixture from the FCC

reactor with an initial boiling point of -315℉ (-192℃) and final boiling point of 1199℉ (648℃),

which is split into seven product streams: Wet Gas, LPD, HCN, LCGO, ICGO, HCGO, and CFB.

Increasing equipment capacity would allow for the distribution of fixed costs over a larger number

of barrels, reducing the cost per barrel processed, and increasing total unit profitability.

DB Solutions considered several potential solutions to increase column throughput.

Ultimately, hydraulic limitations on the overhead compressor turbine led to a solution of altering

turbine operation to expand the 4309 kPag (625 psig) steam to 103.4 kPag (15 psig) instead of the

current 861.8 kPag (125 psig) to provide additional shaft power for compression while lowering

required steam flow, increasing the motor size on LPD pumps CC-P-17/18, and adding a CW

booster pump to allow for increased flow to the overhead condensers. To facilitate separation in

the distillate drum at higher throughput, installation of a vane-type inlet disengagement device on

each inlet line is recommended. The proposed modifications permit an increase in CC-T-01 feed

to 77KBPD while maintaining product specifications.

An economic analysis performed for the proposed modifications estimated that total fixed

capital and additional operating expenses above current amounts were $6.2MM and $2.8MM,

respectively. NPV was projected at $201.8MM over a 25-year project life, generating an IRR of

320%, above IOL’s internal investment threshold of 30%. A sensitivity analysis determined that

i
the WTI price and CW cost impacted the profitability of this project most; however, the NPV was

positive for all sensitivity ranges tested, indicating project robustness. Upon project approval,

funding will be provided from the annual IOL internal budget.

The project will be executed over a 3-year period to accommodate the 2023 turnaround. The

engineering phase, which includes preliminary, front-end, and detailed engineering, was identified

as the longest phase of the project, requiring an estimated 30 months to complete. Materials will

be fabricated in shop, and procurement is estimated to take 12 months. Construction will require

the entirety of the 2-month turnaround period, including commissioning and start-up.

Through reduction of high-pressure steam usage, the proposed modifications decrease

annual CO2 emissions by approximately 32,320 tonnes, providing environmental benefits and

reducing carbon tax liabilities.

This project is financially, socially, and environmentally sustainable as it creates value for

Imperial Oil’s stakeholders, allows for increased Canadian refinery capacity, stimulates the local

economy, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, DB Solutions recommends further

engineering analysis be performed to confirm the viability of this project.

ii
Table of Contents

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... i

List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. ii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. ii
1. Introduction and Statement of Objectives ............................................................................... 1
2. Background .............................................................................................................................. 2
3. Proposed Solution .................................................................................................................... 4
4. Justification .............................................................................................................................. 5
5. Alternatives Considered .......................................................................................................... 7
5.1 Do Nothing ....................................................................................................................... 7
5.2 Addition of Partial Pre-Fractionator Flash Drum and/or Column.................................... 8
5.3 Optimization of Fractionator Operating Pressure ............................................................ 8
5.4 Improvements of Internal Column Components .............................................................. 9
5.5 Inlet Disengagement Devices ......................................................................................... 10
5.6 Turbine Steam Reconfiguration ..................................................................................... 10
6. Project Description ................................................................................................................ 11
6.1 Process Design Description ............................................................................................ 11
6.2 Property Package and Feed Characterization ................................................................. 14
6.3 Base Case Simulation of FCC Fractionator ................................................................... 14
6.4 Proposed Solution Simulation ........................................................................................ 17
6.5 Summary of Material and Energy Balances ................................................................... 18
6.6 Summary Equipment List and Specifications ................................................................ 21
6.7 Utility Requirements ...................................................................................................... 21
6.8 Environment, Safety, Control and Materials of Construction Considerations ............... 22
6.9 Assumptions, Constraints, and Limitations.................................................................... 23
6.9.1 Process Simulation Assumptions ............................................................................ 23
6.9.2 Material and Utility Assumptions ........................................................................... 24
6.9.3 Equipment Assumptions ......................................................................................... 24
6.9.4 Constraints .............................................................................................................. 24
6.9.5 Limitations .............................................................................................................. 25
6.10 Project Execution Strategy ............................................................................................. 25
6.10.1 Engineering Plan ..................................................................................................... 25
iii
 6.10.2 Procurement Plan .................................................................................................... 26
6.10.3 Construction Plan .................................................................................................... 26
6.10.4 Project Schedule...................................................................................................... 27
7. Economic Analysis ................................................................................................................ 29
7.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 29
7.2 Capital Expenditures ...................................................................................................... 29
7.2.1 Direct Field Labour ................................................................................................. 30
7.2.2 Capital Cost Factors ................................................................................................ 31
7.2.3 Work Included and Excluded.................................................................................. 32
7.3 Operating Expenses ........................................................................................................ 33
7.4 Revenue Estimation........................................................................................................ 34
7.5 Project Management Schedule ....................................................................................... 35
7.5.1 Workforce Labor Profile ......................................................................................... 35
7.5.2 Capital Expenditure Profile..................................................................................... 36
7.6 Plan for Financing .......................................................................................................... 37
7.7 Income Tax Table........................................................................................................... 37
7.8 Cash Flow Analysis ........................................................................................................ 39
7.9 Sensitivity Analysis ........................................................................................................ 39
7.10 Discussion of Economics ............................................................................................... 41
8. Safety and Risk Analysis ....................................................................................................... 42
8.1 Risk Control ................................................................................................................... 42
8.2 What-If Analysis ............................................................................................................ 43
8.3 Hazard and Operability Study ........................................................................................ 43
8.4 Dow Chemical Exposure Index...................................................................................... 44
8.5 Dow Fire and Explosion Index ...................................................................................... 44
9. Environmental Analysis ........................................................................................................ 45
10. Net Social Benefit Analysis ................................................................................................... 47
11. Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................................... 48
References: .................................................................................................................................... 51

iv
Appendix A: Process Design Justifications .................................................................................A1

Appendix B: Feed Characterization .............................................................................................. B1

Appendix C: Tower Simulation & Optimization .......................................................................... C1

Appendix D: Mass and Energy Balances......................................................................................D1

Appendix E: Equipment Design, Selection & Utilities ................................................................ E1

Appendix F: Detailed Heat Exchanger Design ............................................................................ F1

Appendix G: Safety and Risk Assessment....................................................................................G1

Appendix H: Project Economics ...................................................................................................H1

Appendix I: Environmental Considerations & Net Social Benefit ................................................ I1

Appendix J: IOL Design Information ............................................................................................ J1

Appendix K: Three Pertinent Articles ..........................................................................................K1

Appendix L: Email Correspondence .............................................................................................H1

Appendix M: Project Team and Charter ...................................................................................... M1

Appendix N: Drawing Package ....................................................................................................N1

v
List of Tables

Table 6.1. CC-T-01 Product Mass Flow Comparison Between Base Case Simulations and IOL

Data .............................................................................................................................. 15

Table 6.2. Mass Balance Summary for the Summer and Winter Case Proposed Solutions ......... 20

Table 6.3. Energy Balance Summary for the Summer and Winter Case Proposed Solutions ...... 20

Table 6.4. Equipment List Pertaining to the Proposed Solution ................................................... 21

Table 6.5. Annualized Utility Requirements for CC-T-01 ........................................................... 22

Table 7.1. Direct Field Labour Factor and Project Expense Factors Applied to CBM ................ 31

Table 7.2. Capital Cost Factor Adjustments ................................................................................. 32

Table 7.3. Incremental Operating Expenses for Proposed Solution and Current Operation ........ 34

Table 7.4. Fractionator Product Prices for Summer and Winter at $55 USD ($73.15 CAD)

WTI .............................................................................................................................. 34

Table 7.5. Cash Flow, Capital Cost Allowance, and Taxes Paid for Project Duration ................ 38

Table 8.1. CEI properties and hazard distances of hydrogen sulfide and carbon monoxide ........ 44

List of Figures

Figure 1.1. Block Flow Diagram .................................................................................................... 4

Figure 4.1. Project Triple Constraint .............................................................................................. 6

Figure 6.1. Process Flow Diagram ................................................................................................ 13

Figure 6.2. Simulated Product Composition Comparison to Measured Data for Summer Base

Case ............................................................................................................................ 16

Figure 6.3. Simulated Product Composition Comparison to Measured Data for the Winter Base

Case ............................................................................................................................ 16

vi
Figure 6.4. Proposed Solution D86 Composition Comparison for Summer Operation ............... 17

Figure 6.5. Proposed Solution D86 Composition Comparison for Winter Operation .................. 18

Figure 6.6. Project Execution Schedule ........................................................................................ 28

Figure 7.1. Facility Bare Module Capital Breakdown for Overhead Equipment ......................... 30

Figure 7.2. Engineering, Procurement and Trade Resources for Project Duration ...................... 36

Figure 7.3. Quarterly and Cumulative Capital Expenditure Burn Rate for Project Duration ....... 37

Figure 7.4. Cumulative Cash Flow for the 25 Year Project Life .................................................. 39

Figure 7.5. Sensitivity Analysis for Parameters Affecting Net Present Value ............................. 40

Figure 7.6. Net Present Value Relative to Varying WTI Prices ................................................... 41

Figure 8.1. Predicted Dispersion of Light Hydrocarbons Using ALOHA and MARPLOT ....... 47

vii
Acknowledgements

The DB Solutions team would like to thank both Mr. Frank Vagi and Mrs. Marnie Jamieson

for your expertise and continuous support throughout the duration of this project. We greatly

appreciated your advice, time, and effort in making us better prepared for our careers as engineers.

This project would not have been possible without your mentorship and support.

To Mrs. Joy Lebert and Mr. Mitchell Unger, the team would like to thank you for your time

and advice, allowing us to produce this report to the best of our abilities.

To all other Ch E 465 academic advisors, the team would like to thank you for your

commitment to shaping us as engineers of the future.

Regards,

The DB Solutions Team

viii
1. Introduction and Statement of Objectives

The capacity of Imperial Oil Ltd. (IOL)’s Strathcona refinery fluidized catalytic cracking

(FCC) unit is constrained by fractionator (CC-T-01) overhead (O/H) equipment limitations.

Additionally, persistent issues with the wet gas compressor (CL-C-01) tripping have resulted in

flaring of O/H products. Since refinery operations entail high fixed costs, maintaining a high on-

stream factor and achieving higher unit capacities are key to long-term profitability. Therefore,

DB Solutions, contracted by IOL for FCC unit evaluation, has the objective of simulating current

CC-T-01 operation, then designing a process solution to allow for increased column throughput

and optimization of product placement economics while meeting all product specifications.

The primary driver for this project is economics, as debottlenecking projects involve

increasing throughput for the maximization of profitability within a specific unit of an existing

facility [1]; however, managing process safety hazards and environmental impacts remain key

design considerations. Process technologies to be evaluated are expected to be well-known in the

oil and gas industry, and any required CAPEX and/or OPEX should be minor in relation to the

future project benefits. As such, an opportunity exists to increase the operating margins of the FCC

fractionator through the distribution of fixed costs amongst a larger number of barrels.

There are potential concerns that may arise during project evaluation. Legal regulations set

by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) applicable to refineries must be adequately followed and

pressure equipment design must also comply with Alberta Boilers Safety Association (ABSA)

standards [2, 3, 4, 5]. There are safety concerns due to increased production and altered operating

conditions for the FCC unit and/or downstream units, requiring detailed risk assessments to be

performed. Lastly, environmental concerns are associated with higher emissions resulting from

increased production, and consequently, higher carbon taxes – impacting economics [6].

1
2. Background

In 2017, Canada produced an estimated 4.2 MMBPD of crude oil; however, with a national

refining capacity limited to 1.94 MMBPD in 2018, the majority of produced crude oil is exported

to the United States [7, 8]. This emphasizes the need for additional Canadian refining capacity to

supply local markets and create higher product value. The current refining capacity in Alberta is

429 KBPD, where IOL’s Strathcona refinery is a dominant player [9]. These refined products are

primarily consumed domestically and are transported via the TransMountain Pipeline, Alberta

Products Pipeline, among other interprovincial systems for distribution and export [7, 9, 10]. While

the number of active Canadian refineries has decreased from a peak of 45 in 1958 to 17 in 2018,

total refining capacity has continued to increase [7]. With expected growth in global demand for

petrochemicals along with uncertainty in crude oil prices, it is imperative that existing refineries

increase capacity through debottlenecking solutions and strategic expansions [11].

Many integrated refineries across the world use the FCC process, commercially implemented

in 1942, to break down heavy oil derivatives with high boiling points into smaller, more volatile

hydrocarbon molecules [12]. These lighter products are subsequently separated into streams with

narrower compositional ranges using a fractionator. Canadian refineries using FCC methods

refined approximately 1.9 million barrels of oil per day in 2016 [13]. The IOL Strathcona refinery

FCC reactor is fed with a mixture of synthetic crude, heavy gas oil, and pitch – a highly viscous

petroleum residue [14]. Typical fractionator feed consists of the cracked hydrocarbons from the

FCC reactor, as well as steam and occasionally slop – a waste stream composed of emulsified

crude oil, water, and solids [15]. The FCC unit feed is stated as the volumetric flow rate to the

FCC reactor, which is limited to 70 KBPD due to the downstream fractionator O/H equipment.

2
 Products acquired directly from the fractionator include an O/H Wet Gas stream, LPD, HCN,

LCGO, ICGO, HCGO, and CFB, listed in descending order of stream removal from the column.

Exploiting the crack spread between products and feed can significantly impact plant profitability;

lighter products obtained from the upper end of the fractionator are value-added relative to the feed

price, while the opposite is generally true for heavier products. Generally, fractionators are very

intricate units, as small changes in process variables can have drastic effects on column operating

conditions (i.e. throughput, separation efficiency, flow regime, etc.). As such, the fractionator is

continuously monitored, and regular samples are taken to ensure that products remain on-spec.

The block flow diagram of the process is shown in Figure 1.1, which outlines major process

transformations and the project scope boundary. The scope begins within the FCC unit at the

Strathcona refinery and involves the simulation of CC-T-01 feed and product streams, main

column equipment (i.e. pump arounds, side stripping columns, heat exchangers, etc.), the

associated O/H equipment (i.e. condensers, distillate drum, wet gas compressor, etc.), and the

consideration of any major upstream and/or downstream process, utility, or equipment constraints.

Therefore, the scope is limited to the column products, as defined in Figure 1.1, and does not

involve simulation of further downstream mixing, processing, or storage. In addition to the design,

detailed economic, safety, and environmental analyses are performed, along with a drawing

package and a project execution strategy.

3
Figure 1.1. Block Flow Diagram.

3. Proposed Solution

Three pertinent articles used in the evaluation process of the proposed solution are displayed

in Appendix K. The proposed solution involved upgrading the capacity of CC-T-01 O/H

equipment, which allows for all project ‘musts’ and ‘wants’ to be satisfied, per Appendix A.

Currently, the O/H turbine is limited to the production of power obtained through the expansion

of 4309 kPag (625 psig) steam, herein referred to as 625# steam, to 861.8 kPag (125 psig), herein

referred to as 125# steam. Wet gas compressor CL-C-01 relies on power supplied by the O/H

turbine, and to allow for increased wet gas throughput, turbine CL-CT-01 operating conditions

will be modified to expand the 625# steam to 103.4 kPag (15 psig) steam, herein referred to as 15#

steam. As a result, the turbine can extract more power from further expansion of steam, and thus,

the compressor may operate at a higher flow rate. Based on the curve provided, the compressor

operating points for summer and winter operation were selected to maintain safe operation away

from both surge and stonewall. The compressor spillback to CC-D-03 was increased to 11.3 sm3/h

4
(400 KSCFH) from the current 9.2 sm3/h (325 KSCFH) to ensure the compressor has sufficient

suction volume and pressure in case of process upsets. Although DB Solutions determined that the

current distillate drum CC-D-03 has enough capacity to handle the increased flow, the installation

of a new vane type inlet disengagement device, the Schoepentoeter PlusTM by Sulzer Chemtech,

is recommended to be installed on both separator inlets to prevent liquid entrainment at higher

flow rates. Additionally, the motors on LPD pumps CC-P-17/18 will be replaced with similar,

larger motors to address the current motor amp limitations and enable the pump to operate at the

higher flow rate required in the proposed solution. Lastly, the increased throughput will require

additional cooling in the overhead heat exchangers, and rather than procure additional heat

exchangers to increase surface area, the cooling water (CW) flow rate will be increased by 16%

(196 m3/h / 862.8 USGPM) to provide the additional cooling duty. Although the additional CW at

the necessary head should be available due to the deconstruction of the lubes plant adjacent to CC-

T-01, DB Solutions recommends the addition of a CW booster pump with spare (CC-P-BP1/2) to

ensure that the required overhead cooling is always available.

Implementation of the proposed modifications would allow for an FCC reactor feed increase

from 70 KBPD to approximately 77 KBPD. The additional throughput combined with economic

placement of products through the maximization of value-added streams would increase unit

profitability by distributing fixed costs over a larger number of barrels.

4. Justification

The proposed solution offers an innovative solution to the limitations that exists within the

CC-T-01 fractionator O/Hs at the IOL Strathcona refinery. The project is justified through the

acceptable evaluation of project “Musts” and “Wants”, as outlined in Appendix A, as well as

through several other factors discussed below.

5
 Figure 4.1 shows the project triple constraint triangle, which illustrates how the success of a

project is primarily impacted by scope, time, and cost [16]. As such, DB Solutions has opted to

develop a project focused on a detailed and technical scope while minimizing the required schedule

length to accommodate the 2023 turnaround (T/A) period, as well as the capital cost to shelter IOL

from inherent business risk. Thus, the proposed solution coincides well with the triple constraint

and is substantiated by the commentary below.

Time Cost

Scope

Figure 4.1. Project Triple Constraint.

Supportive reasoning for the project selection includes relatively low CAPEX for equipment

upgrades of $6.2MM. Additionally, OPEX was increased by $2.8MM annually, but decreased on

a per-barrel basis, primarily through the reduction of high-pressure steam usage. The modifications

permit a throughput increase of approximately 10% above current capacity while maintaining

product specifications, providing $28.9MM in additional revenue. The installation of improved

inlet disengagement devices in CC-D-03 reduce the risk of persistent CL-C-01 tripping issues due

to liquid carryover from the drum.

DB Solutions was able to exploit the high product value of HCN, being 110% to 130% of

West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil pricing throughout the year, while the FCC unit

feedstock remains at par with WTI; therefore, the opportunity of favouring this product yields

6
significant profitability for IOL. With Canadian pipeline capacity increases on the horizon, IOL

will benefit from the ability to create and deliver more high value products [17].

The improved operational costs per-barrel also coincide with reduced environmental impact

obtained from minimizing 625# steam generation. Carbon emissions, resulting from steam

generation for CL-CT-01, are reduced by 32,320 tonnes annually, effectively reducing the carbon

footprint and providing carbon-tax benefits to IOL. This project is also recognized for maintaining

all health and safety risks within an acceptable level, as is assumed to be true for current operations

– however, existing pressure relief and other preventative safeguards may require re-design to

withstand increased column throughput. Finally, in terms of net social benefit, this solution

provides a higher supply of gasoline and diesel during times of higher demand and offers

significantly more tax dollars ($228.9MM over project lifetime) to the province of Alberta, both

of which support provincial tourism as well as the resident satisfaction. Additionally, risks to

surrounding communities are minimized, since DB Solutions has recommended well-understood

process technologies without significant inherent dangers.

5. Alternatives Considered

Discussed below are several technical alternatives to the proposed solution that were

considered in project evaluation. Additionally, the evaluation of inlet disengagement devices for

the proposed solution is discussed. Design evaluation matrices and other details regarding the

selection process are provided in Appendix A.

5.1 Do Nothing

This option would involve maintaining CC-T-01 throughput at 70 KBPD; therefore, no

modifications or improvements would be made to the fractionator. This option was eliminated as

it fails to meet one of the project “Musts” of increasing CC-T-01 throughput capabilities beyond

7
current operating limits. Additionally, this option would not provide a solution to the issue of CL-

C-01 tripping on liquid buildup, which could potentially lead to more events requiring a plant

shutdown if fractionator O/Hs remain at capacity [18].

5.2 Addition of Partial Pre-Fractionator Flash Drum and/or Column

This option entails the addition of a flash drum or small distillation column upstream of CC-

T-01 to remove lighter components from a fraction of the feed, which would relieve fractionator

O/H loading [19, 20, 21]; in fact, the addition of a flash drum could increase throughput by 20 to

50% [20]. Additional condensing duty, another distillate separation drum, and increased

compressor power would likely be required to handle the capacity increase. The flash drum vapour

stream could be routed to CC-T-01 O/H wet gas stream if quality constraints are met; flash drum

liquid underflow would be fed to a stage in the middle of the column. Additional side stripping

steam may be required to further tailor product quality to specifications.

This option met all project “Musts”, which allowed it to be evaluated using a weighted-

scoring model according to the project “Wants”; however, the high upfront costs associated with

this option along with safety and operational concerns regarding large temperature changes

upstream of CC-T-01 inlet and product specification uncertainty, this option was rejected.

Additionally, per initial client review, it was determined that the business risk associated with the

high CAPEX was unacceptable for further evaluation [22].

5.3 Optimization of Fractionator Operating Pressure

The distillation column throughput is a complex function of operating pressure, and thus,

there exists the opportunity for improvement in operational efficiency through pressure control.

Depending on column operating conditions, an increase or decrease in pressure could prove

beneficial [23, 24]. There have been several case studies performed where increasing column

8
pressure has significantly reduced vapour loading and eased column flooding [20, 23].

Additionally, an increased tower pressure may introduce heavier products to the distillate [24].

Alternatively, some cases have shown that decreasing operating pressure has reduced the net area

required for vapour flow and decreased stress on overhead equipment [23]. The conflicting

conclusions based on either increasing or decreasing column pressure led to the understanding that

there exists an optimal operating pressure that varies based on feed composition and column

characteristics [23]. Whether the optimal pressure is higher or lower than the current value, this

option would require minor CAPEX – providing near immediate value for plant economics if

optimized.

Although the optimization of column pressure appears to be a simple yet beneficial approach,

this option was eliminated due to the limited scope of the current study. DB Solutions is unaware

of the upstream or downstream effects column pressure adjustment could have on stream

compositions and other factors. Furthermore, there would be limited control in terms of economic

placement of products, and if vapour was favoured at higher column throughput, the O/H

equipment would remain restricted, which would necessitate additional capital costs.

5.4 Improvements of Internal Column Components

This option involves the modification of CC-T-01 internals, such as the selection and

installation of new high-efficiency trays and/or packing, adjustments of weir height and/or tray

spacing, or the addition of another tower segment to increase the total number of trays. Altering

CC-T-01 internals would change vapour and liquid flow rates throughout the column and may be

designed to ensure operation in the froth regime at high vapour velocity such that tray efficiency

is maximized [25, 26]. If optimized, this would allow for increased separation extent as well as the

economic placement of product streams. Alterations to CC-T-01 internals would aid in product

9
placement and quality; however, O/H equipment would remain restricted unless combined with

another alternative.

This option has limited potential for debottlenecking overheads without combination with

another alternative. Alteration of column internals would require significant downtime that may

extend beyond the scheduled 2023 T/A period due to the nature of modifications and column

hydrotesting required before operation, resulting in lost revenue for the refinery. As this option has

limited debottlenecking potential and requires significant downtime, it was eliminated.

5.5 Inlet Disengagement Devices

Several typical inlet disengagement device types have been evaluated for the proposed

solution, such as the diverter (impact) plate, half-pipe type, vane type, and cyclonic type; it was

found that the vane and cyclonic types provided optimal performance in most categories, including

momentum limitations, bulk liquid separation, entrainment reduction, downstream velocity

profile, and distribution of vapour phase [27]. Therefore, Sulzer Chemtech inlet disengagement

devices were subsequently evaluated, where alternatives to the recommended Schoepentoeter

PlusTM were the vane type, Shell Schoepentoeter TM, and the cyclonic type, HiPerTM [28].

Cyclonic-type disengagement devices are typically better suited for high liquid content feed,

whereas distillate drum CC-D-03 is known to be primarily vapour; therefore, the HiPerTM device

was eliminated. Likewise, the Shell Schoepentoeter TM was eliminated since it is unable to achieve

superb liquid entrainment reduction specifications, as exemplified by its successor, the

Schoepentoeter Plus TM [29].

5.6 Turbine Steam Reconfiguration

An alternative to the proposed turbine CL-CT-01 steam expansion from 625# to 15# was

also evaluated, which would involve higher 625# steam generation for the production of increased
10
shaft power to compressor CL-C-01. Due to the existing hydraulic limitations, the inlet 625# steam

line would be re-designed to withstand increased capacity. Additionally, utility production

limitations would have to be evaluated for the proposed supply.

This option was eliminated due to its significant associated complexity and increased costs,

both capital and operating. Furthermore, there are higher safety risks and environmental impacts

associated with increased 625# steam generation.

6. Project Description

The FCC fractionator and supporting equipment form a fundamental unit operation within

the Strathcona refinery. IOL provided pressure, temperature, and flow rate data for two time

periods to obtain simulated results for various operating conditions: June 20 – July 20, 2018

(summer) and November 2018 (winter). Using the data provided, DB Solutions used VMGSim

v10.0 to build two base case simulations to model current summer and winter operation, outlined

in the following sections. The base simulations were subsequently modified to model operation

for all alternative solutions to allow for further feasibility assessment. Further information

regarding feed characterization and CC-T-01 setup in VMGSim for both base case and proposed

solution are contained in Appendices B and C, respectively. Design basis information received

from IOL is contained in Appendix J, while pertinent email correspondence is displayed in

Appendix L.

6.1 Process Design Description

Figure 6.1 displays the project process flow diagram, while associated stream tables for

summer and winter operation may be found in Appendix D. Additionally, the project drawing

package may be found in Appendix N. This project involved an in-depth analysis of the FCC

fractionator, four side stripping columns, a wet gas compressor and turbine, as well as all

11
associated pumps and heat exchangers. The fractionator internals consist of 31 sieve trays, 4 jet

tab trays, a 3.66 m (12 ft) structured packing section, and 12 shed trays. There are three pump

arounds to provide cooling, colloquially designated by tower location as follows: bottom (BPA),

middle (MPA), and top (TPA). The fractionator feed consists of cracked hydrocarbons from the

FCC reactor at an average temperature of 524°C (975.3℉) and pressure of 219 kPag (31.7 psig).

Due to current fractionator O/H limitations, the FCC reactor is fed a maximum of 70 KBPD, in

which volume swells by approximately 14%, depending on operating conditions and desired

products. The superheated vapour stream enters the column at the lowest stage, where shed trays

allow for efficient heat transfer. Since the column does not contain a reboiler, the feed provides all

vapour loading in the column. The four side strippers use 125# steam to tailor the HCN, LCGO,

ICGO, and HCGO product quality. The column O/H vapour stream is partially condensed through

a series of parallel heat exchangers, then separated in a three-phase distillate drum (CC-D-03). The

drum vapour product is sent to compressor CL-C-01, powered by turbine CL-CT-01 through

expansion of 625# steam to 125# steam, which is currently restricted by hydraulic limitations.

12
Figure 6.1 Process Flow Diagram.
13
6.2 Property Package and Feed Characterization

As this project is simulation intensive, selection of an appropriate property package was

essential for accurate simulation and meaningful results. The Advanced Peng-Robinson (APR)

equation of state was selected to model the process, as it has been proven to accurately model

hydrocarbon mixtures over a wide range of operating conditions [30, 31, 32]. The APR model has

a large set of molecule interaction parameters for temperature dependent scenarios, increasing

accuracy of property calculations [33]. As such, the APR equation of state was deemed suitable

for modelling the hydrocarbon distillation process.

Since the fractionator feed is not directly sampled, the simulated feed was specified as a

mixture of all column product streams at the conditions of the FCC reactor exit. The Oil

Characterization Environment in VMGSim was used to convert provided D86 curves for all

product streams into pseudo-compounds, which may be used for simulation [34]. The Oil Analysis

tool was then used to generate a combined feed D86 curve for both summer and winter datasets,

where the composition obtained was then used for base case simulation.

6.3 Base Case Simulation of FCC Fractionator

To evaluate debottlenecking projects, ensuring an accurate simulation of the existing design

is essential, as the proposed solution is compared to the original simulation to assess feasibility.

Upon characterizing the feed in VMGSim, the software was used for column and associated

equipment simulation, where operating conditions were set to the values provided by IOL. Upon

convergence, simulated product flow rates and D86 compositions were obtained from the Oil

Analysis tool and compared to the plant data provided by IOL. Table 6.1 displays the product mass

flow comparison between both summer and winter base case simulations to data provided by IOL,

where values have been converted from volumetric flow rates. All product stream mass flows

14
matched the actual operating data with low error, confirming that the simulation reflected actual

operation for both the summer and winter time periods. The feed streams were not compared as

VMGSim permits feed stream specification, meaning the simulated feed was set to the same mass

flow rate as in actual operation, and therefore mass flows were identical.

Table 6.1. CC-T-01 Product Mass Flow Comparison Between Base Simulations and IOL Data.
Mass Flow (kg/h)
Summer Base Case Winter Base Case
Description IOL Data Simulation IOL Data Simulation
Wet Gas 101,497 102,637 92,802 93,455
LPD 122,081 122,220 142,721 143,312
HCN 39,010 39,018 37,721 37,717
LCGO 46,531 46,574 56,585 56,460
ICGO 32,198 32,206 31,960 33,232
HCGO 8,304 8,297 7,303 7,212
CFB + HCGO Blend 14,914 14,449 11,894 11,789
CFB 6,010 6,040 7,243 7,241
Total 370,544 371,440 388,228 390,419
Average Percent Difference 0.14% 0.08%

Since the mass flow rates for all product streams aligned with measured operating data, a

comparison between product stream compositions was performed. Figures 6.2 and 6.3 display the

simulated product D86 data compared to the data received from IOL for the summer and winter

base cases, respectively. In both cases, the simulated product compositions align well with

measured data. The composition of the CFB stream has a slight discrepancy in that the simulated

composition was heavier than its true composition. It should be noted that the CFB stream

composition is not measured on-site; IOL estimates its composition through PRO II simulation. It

was determined that the VMG simulation of CC-T-01 was carrying the lighter portion of the CFB

stream higher up the column, and alterations to the VMG simulation were unable to match the

PRO II CFB D86 simulation received from the client. Per discussion with industry and academic

15
advisors, the CFB composition variance was acceptable since the CFB stream makes up only 1.6%

of total product flow and this project is focused on column overheads [35, 36].

LPD HCN LCGO ICGO HCGO CFB

Figure 6.2. Product Composition Comparison to Measured Data for Summer Base Case.

LPD HCN LCGO ICGO HCGO CFB

Figure 6.3. Product Composition Comparison to Measured Data for Winter Base Case.

16
6.4 Proposed Solution Simulation

Once the base case simulations were established and determined to be high-quality, the

proposed modifications were implemented to the simulation to assess feasibility. Various

fractionator feed rates were tested to determine the maximum feed increase while maintaining

product specifications. DB Solutions determined that the maximum FCC reactor feed attainable

while maintaining product specifications was 77KBPD. Higher feed flow rates were only

attainable if large-scale column modifications were applied, which would not only drastically

affect NPV and IRR, but would also be unlikely to be accomplished within the scheduled 2023

T/A duration. Figures 6.4 and 6.5 display the product compositions obtained at a 77KBPD FCC

reactor feed rate for the proposed solution compared to the measured D86 curves provided by IOL.

For both summer and winter operation, the fractionator with the proposed modifications were able

to meet product specifications, permitting further economic, environmental, and social analysis.

LPD HCN LCGO ICGO HCGO CFB

Figure 6.4. Proposed Solution D86 Composition Comparison for Summer Operation.

17
 LPD HCN LCGO ICGO HCGO CFB

Figure 6.5. Proposed Solution D86 Composition Comparison for Winter Operation.

6.5 Summary of Material and Energy Balances

Initially, material and energy balances for the summer and winter base cases were performed

to ensure that the simulated product flow rates were similar to measured IOL data for the respective

seasons; these may be found in Appendix D. The results confirmed that simulated mass flows of

all product streams aligned with the measured IOL data for both summer and winter cases, where

the average deviation in mass flow for product streams were 0.14% and 0.08%, respectively; this

indicates that the base case simulations accurately modelled seasonal CC-T-01 operation. As for

the energy balances, energy in and out of the process for the summer and winter base cases was

found to vary by 0.28% and 0.30%, respectively, which indicates near closure of simulated energy;

since actual energy balance data was not available to DB Solutions, no comparison was able to be

performed between the simulations and IOL data.

Table 6.2 contains the material balance summary for the proposed solution in both summer

and winter operation. Table 6.3 displays the energy balance summary for the proposed solution in

18
both summer and winter operation. Values were extracted from the respective VMGSim files,

while the balances were performed in Excel. The material and energy balances for the summer and

winter proposed solution cases ensured the validity and accuracy of simulated results. For the mass

balances, inlet and outlet flows for the summer and winter cases were found to vary by 0.05% and

0.001%, respectively, which indicates excellent closure for each case. As for the energy balances,

energy in and out of the process for the summer and winter proposed solution simulations was

found to vary by 0.24% for both cases, indicating near closure of energy.

19
Table 6.2. Mass Balance Summary for the Summer and Winter Case Proposed Solutions.

Summer Winter
Process Stream
Description Mass Flow Mass Flow Mass Flow Mass Flow
Number
In (kg/h) Out (kg/h) In (kg/h) Out (kg/h)
1 Fractionator Feed 443,134 - 453,592 -
2 HCGO SS 125# Steam 1,588 - 1,043 -
3 ICGO SS 125# Steam 1,043 - 363 -
4 LCGO SS 125# Steam 1,497 - 1,179 -
5 HCN SS 125# Steam 272 - 272 -
8 HCN - 59,769 - 52,549
11 LCGO - 64,485 - 62,757
14 ICGO - 34,746 - 34,821
35 Wet Gas - 119,534 - 107,066
36 Sour Water - 2,985 - 1,442
37 LPD - 132,659 - 167,817
38 HCGO - 10,426 - 7,761
39 CFB + HCGO Blend - 16,895 - 14,647
40 CFB - 6,260 - 7,598
Total 447,534 447,759 456,450 456,456
Average Percent Difference 0.050% 0.0013%

Table 6.3. Energy Balance Summary for the Summer and Winter Case Proposed Solutions.

Summer Winter
Stream Number / Energy Energy Energy Energy
Description
Equipment Tag In Out In Out
(kW) (kW) (kW) (kW)
1 Fractionator Feed 226,021 - 225,291 -
2 HCGO SS 125# Steam 402 - 264 -
3 ICGO SS 125# Steam 264 - 92 -
4 LCGO SS 125# Steam 379 - 299 -
5 HCN SS 125# Steam 69 - 69 -
8 HCN - 3,343 - 3,587
11 LCGO - 5,939 - 6,213
14 ICGO - 5,161 - 5,561
35 Wet Gas - (12,615) - (10,716)
36 Sour Water - (1,562) - (750)
37 LPD - (6,512) - (7,607)
38 HCGO - 1,768 - 1,390
39 CFB + HCGO Blend - 2,305 - 2,165
40 CFB - 1,872 - 2,280
CC-E-03/04/05/06/41 &
BPA Duty - 105,506 - 102,575
CL-E-09/10
CC-E-01/02/40/48 &
MPA Duty - 39,565 - 43,961
CL-E-05/06
CC-E-12/34/35/60(A/B) TPA Duty - 36,634 - 30,772
CL-E-13/14/15/16/17/18
O/H Condenser - 46,269 - 47,120
/19/20/21/22/23/24
Total 227,135 227,672 226,014 226,550
Average Percent Difference 0.24% 0.24%

20
6.6 Summary Equipment List and Specifications

The process equipment additions for the proposed solution are shown in Table 6.4.

Equipment design details and calculations are displayed in Appendix E.

Table 6.4. Equipment List Pertaining to the Proposed Solution.

Tag Name Description Qty Specifications
Flow Rate 1415m3/h (6231USGM)
Inlet Pressure: 170kPaa (24.7psia)
Outlet Pressure: 342kPaa (49.6psia)
CW Booster Centrifugal Head: 17.6m (57.7ft)
CC-P-X1/X2 2
Pump Pump Fluid Power: 83kW (111hp)
Shaft Power: 111kW (149hp)
Efficiency: 75%
Casing Material: Carbon steel
CW Booster
CC-PM-X1/X2 Pump Motor 2 Shaft Power: 111kW (149hp)
Pump Motor
LPD
CC-PM-17/18 Pump Motor 2 Shaft Power: 113kW (152hp)
Pump Motor
Schoepentoeter
PlusTM Inlet
CC-D-03 Vane Type 2 Inlet Diameter: 508mm (20in)
Disengagement
Device

6.7 Utility Requirements

As CC-T-01 throughput increases, demand on certain utility streams will increase to

maintain product specifications; however, due to the modification of turbine CL-CT-01 operating

conditions, 625# steam requirements decrease. Table 6.5 summarizes the difference in utility

demands between the annualized base case and proposed solution. Additional details pertaining to

utility requirements are contained in Appendix E. To provide additional cooling in the top of the

column, the CW flow rate was increased by 16%; the addition of a CW booster pump ensures that

this requirement is met. The alteration of turbine CL-CT-01 operating conditions reduced the 625#

21
steam flow requirement by 30.8%. Additionally, 125# stripping steam requirements slightly

decreased as the increased feed to CC-T-01 combined with economic placement of products raised

the boiling point range for most products, thus requiring less steam to meet product specifications.

Reduced steam flow rate lowers stress on boiler equipment and reduces operating costs. Finally,

total pump electricity requirements marginally increased due to higher CC-T-01 product flows.

Table 6.5. Annualized Utility Requirements for CC-T-01.

CW to O/H 625# Steam for 125# Steam for Pump

Case Condensers CL-CT-01 Side Strippers Electricity
(m3/h / USGPM) (kg/h / lb/h) (kg/h / lb/h) (kW / hp)

Base Case 1,219 / 5,369 65,636 / 144,400 3,678 / 8,092 972 / 1,304

Proposed
1,415 / 6,231 45,409 / 99,900 3,636 / 8,000 995 / 1,334
Solution

6.8 Environment, Safety, Control and Materials of Construction Considerations

The proposed solution was selected not only to maximize profit, but also to prioritize process

safety and environmental effects. As typical for refineries, a significant amount of CO2 is emitted

into the atmosphere during operation, and calculations were performed to quantify the net change

in release of this greenhouse gas resulting from proposed solution implementation. The enactment

of the carbon tax also encourages an environmentally-friendly solution. In determining the

proposed solution, DB Solutions maintained a focus on process safety rather than occupational

safety, as process-based risk management may be used to address new hazards introduced by the

proposed changes, whereas occupational safety typically places focus on slips, trips, and falls.

Due to the nature of a debottlenecking project, control systems for the fractionator and

corresponding equipment already exist. However, the increase in throughput will likely require

modification of controllers or the installation of new systems to safely manage the process. Since

22
many process parameters such as product temperatures, flow rates, densities, and compositions

will change because of the recommended modifications, controller parameters will likely require

new tuning parameters for the proportional, integral, and derivative gains. Additionally, the new

CW booster pumps will require new controllers altogether, which will be considered in the

following design phases, but are outside of the project scope.

When making alterations to overhead equipment, material of construction was considered as

there are corrosive materials present throughout the column. Sour water passes through overhead

heat exchangers and is drawn from reflux drum CC-D-03. The presence of sulphur compounds in

CC-T-01 feed at temperatures above 500℉ (260℃) may lead to sulfidation corrosion, which is of

concern to DB Solutions [37].

6.9 Assumptions, Constraints, and Limitations

6.9.1 Process Simulation Assumptions

For the base case and proposed solution simulations, it was assumed that:

• The fractionator feed composition was equal to a sum of its products and that no reaction occurs

within the fractionator – only separation

• The measured data (pressure, temperature, flow rate, density, composition) from IOL was

accurate and complete

• Heat exchangers in series could be simulated as one large exchanger with equivalent duty

• Water introduced into O/H condensers for fouling prevention may be neglected per academic

advisor guidance [36]

• Measured pressure drop over the top five trays in CC-T-01 is accurate and may be extrapolated

to represent pressure drop for other trays in the column

• LPD composition is similar to measured LCN composition

23
• Wet Gas composition is similar to the combined TFG and Cat C3/C4 composition

• Fractionator feed composition and properties are unchanged with increased throughput

6.9.2 Material and Utility Assumptions

Regarding materials of construction and utilities on site, it was assumed that:

• Materials selected for CC-T-01 and corresponding equipment are designed to withstand

compounds present in column feed under normal operating conditions

• Additional CW is available for use at the properties specified by IOL; per academic advisor

guidance, the lubes plant is being shut down and extra CW is available for use [36]

• Cooling duty in TPA, MPA, and BPA are constant at values provided by IOL

6.9.3 Equipment Assumptions

When modelling equipment, unless directly informed otherwise from IOL, it was assumed that:

• Equipment may perform according to the datasheet pump/compressor curve

• Downstream equipment may handle modest increases in feed

6.9.4 Constraints

The following constraints were considered during evaluation of this project:

• LPD pumps (CC-P-17/18) were constrained by motor amp limitations at 33.2 KBPD

• Reflux pumps (CC-P-41/42) hydraulically limited at 18.5 KBPD

• Compressor (CL-C-01) output capped by 625# steam hydraulic limitations to CL-CT-01

• TPA (CC-P-11/16) hydraulically limited at 121 KBPD

• MPA (CC-P-10/11) motor amp limit at 92.5 KBPD

• HCGO + CFB blend minimum flow of 2.4 KBPD to prevent deposition of catalyst fines

24
 6.9.5 Limitations

The following limitations were noted for the proposed solution:

• The analysis excluded impacts on downstream units which may not be capable of handing the

increased throughput

• VMGSim assumes perfect mixing in each stage, which is unlikely to occur during actual

operation – potentially affecting column temperature profile and thus product compositions

• Product pricing was based on information received from IOL; however, DB Solutions was

informed that the product pricing varies constantly, impacting economic analysis accuracy

6.10 Project Execution Strategy

The following involves an in-depth discussion regarding the project execution strategy for

implementation of the proposed solution for the FCC Fractionator, where further information is

provided in Appendix H. The implementation of equipment changes to the fractionator O/H

requires unit shutdown; therefore, the installation will be completed during the planned 2023 T/A,

during the months of May and June.

6.10.1 Engineering Plan

The plan assumes that the conceptual design must be reaffirmed and evaluated by the IOL

Engineering Team; therefore, this stage has been identified as the longest stage within the project.

This phase consists of preliminary engineering, front-end engineering design (FEED), and detailed

engineering. The plan begins with confirmation of simulation results with Koch-Glitsch as well as

completing a scoping study. Once the project has been sanctioned, FEED will consist of initial

process drawings, cost estimation, and finalizing the design basis memorandum (DBM). Upon

DBM approval, detailed engineering will commence and mechanical, civil, electrical and process

drawing packages will be developed. Redlining of project drawings will ensure that design

25
requirements are implemented per the standards of IOL, governing bodies such as AER, and

industry codes: CSA Z662 and ASME B31.3. Engineering will also be required to perform studies

on hydraulic limitations for process piping and downstream equipment, per the proposed solution

modifications. As the project is executed during the T/A, resources are required to respond to

vendor RFI (Request for Information) as well as complete safety initiatives, including: LOPA

(Layer of Protection Analysis), SIL (Safety Integrity Levels), and HAZOP (Hazard and

Operability Study). Once execution is completed, resources will be required to complete PSSR

(pre-start-up safety reviews) with the commissioning team.

6.10.2 Procurement Plan

Procurement for items will commence during late stages of the detailed engineering phase

to ensure sufficient lead time is provided for process related equipment. Once designs have been

finalized, a technical bid evaluation will be completed. Once a vendor has been selected, the

procurement team will complete supply requisitions and purchase orders for required equipment.

Procurement specialists will engage with vendors to ensure that equipment is delivered as per the

set schedule. Equipment will be fabricated in shop and delivered prior to project execution.

6.10.3 Construction Plan

Before the project is executed, the Imperial engineering and operations team will initiate a

management of change (MOC) for the new process related equipment and acquire signoff before

contractors mobilize on site. One month prior to construction, equipment will be delivered to site

to avoid congestion at the beginning of the T/A. The construction would begin with demolition of

any equipment that is to be replaced. New equipment would have designated locations where a

concrete foundation would be set. Ground integrity tests will be performed to assess packing and

structural strength before concrete is laid. Additional piping will be tied into existing networks to
26
provide room for new installations. New electrical systems will be integrated into the existing grid.

Site acceptance testing (SAT) will occur once the new equipment has been added. All construction

processes taking place will follow mandatory safety regulations as set out by Imperial Oil

standards, the Government of Alberta and any delegated administrative organizations. A

construction camp will not be required due to the refinery being near Edmonton.

6.10.4 Project Schedule

Figure 6.6 contains a Gantt Chart that displays the project execution schedule and that

displays the time requirements for the engineering, procurement, and construction phases. Per the

schedule below, preliminary, FEED, and detailed engineering phases are required for the

brownfield retrofit design project. Time contingency was added to the procurement phase of the

project to allocate additional time in case of equipment delays. Critical path items for project

execution have been identified as: DBM, equipment & utility design, Class 3 cost estimate,

drawing packages, purchasing/receiving equipment, drawing redlining and as building, and

commissioning/start-up. Project management techniques such as earned value management, which

allows for tracking of cost and schedule variance, should be used to ensure critical path items are

completed within the budget and on schedule [38, 39]. Additionally, project schedule compression

techniques of fast-tracking or crashing can be utilized to shorten project activity durations if

required [38, 39].

27
Figure 6.6. Project Execution Schedule.
28
7. Economic Analysis

7.1 Introduction

An economic analysis of the brownfield project was completed to assess the feasibility for

proposed fractionator modifications. Appendix H contains revenue estimation, equipment costing,

and detailed economic calculations for the base case and proposed solution. Fixed capital and

operating expenses for the proposed solution were determined using guidelines from Ulrich and

Vasudevan and data provided from IOL [40]. The evaluation was completed using a 25-year

project life, where financial metrics such as NPV, IRR, and PBP were determined for the revenue

and operating cost changes between base case and proposed solution. For the analysis, the Q4 2018

value of 616.1 from the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI) was used to account for

equipment inflation [41]. The currency exchange rate was taken as the 2018 average: 1.33

CAD/USD [42].

7.2 Capital Expenditures

Capital expenditures for project consisted of O/H equipment, including: CC-P-17/18 LPD

pump motors, CC-XP-01/02 CW booster pumps and motors, and CC-D-03 inlet disengagement

devices. To ensure robust operation, all equipment upgrades were installed on both the primary

piece of equipment in addition to the spare. Figure 7.1 displays facility bare module capital for

each component associated with the proposed solution. A spare CW booster pump was also costed

for installation to prevent fractionator shutdown in case of pump failure. Facility bare module

capital was estimated using costing charts from Ulrich & Vasudevan with adjustment factors from

Guthrie [40, 43, 44]. Using this method, facility bare module capital totaled an estimated

$1,923,000. Working capital for this project was neglected based on previously completed industry

related projects [45, 46, 47].

29
Figure 7.1. Facility Bare Module Capital Breakdown for Overhead Equipment.

7.2.1 Direct Field Labour

Table 7.1 shows the adjustment factors for Direct Field Labour (DFL) and Indirect Project

Expenses applied to bare module cost. Modifications to existing infrastructure and installation of

new equipment will be completed on site during the 2023 T/A. Shop fabrication is preferred to

field fabrication, primarily due to lower production, labour, and transportation costs. Due to the

congestion within Pipeline Alley (PLA), equipment will be fabricated in the shop and transported

to site for construction. As the project will be constructed in Alberta, specifically within Strathcona

County, a location factor of 1.41 was used. Additional DFL adjustments (operating facility, T/A

construction) and indirect project expenses (overhead, scaffolding, miscellaneous) were added to

bare module cost. For this project, adjustments such as winter conditions and construction camps

were neglected since T/A takes place in summer and contractors can be sourced from the

Edmonton area. Direct field labour was estimated to be $158,000.

Per client and academic advisor specifications, an adjustment for supporting infrastructure

was added to indirect project expenses to account for costs associated with electrical infrastructure

30
upgrades including motor control centre (MCC), process logic controllers (PLC), breaker switches,

conduits, cable trays, among others [36, 48].

Table 7.1. Direct Field Labour Factor and Project Expense Factors Applied to CBM.
Parameter Applied Total Factor Factor Applied
(A) (B) (A×B)
Construction DFL Adjustments
Equipment Cost (Cp) $156,000
AB Green Field 100% 25% 25%
Fort McMurray 50% 25% 12.5%
Operating Facility 100% 30% 30%
% DFL in T/A 90% 50% 45%
Indirect Project Expenses
Overhead for DFL Additions 100% 0.7×CL 0.7×CL
Scaffolding 50% 25% 12.5%
Misc – Total CAPEX $2MM N/A 30%
Supporting Infrastructure* N/A N/A 150%*
Average Overall Adjustment Factor
4.07**
*Supporting Infrastructure at 150% was added per client and academic advisor request [48]
**Overall DFL does not include adjustments for CEPCI Index and Currency Exchange Rates

7.2.2 Capital Cost Factors

Table 7.2 outlines additional capital cost adjustments applied to facility bare module cost.

The proposed solution involves modifications to existing tower operations; therefore, a process

contingency of 10% was applied [49]. Additionally, per the high contractor demand for refinery

T/A season and location of the refinery within PLA, a contractor fee of 10% was utilized.

The subtotal facility and contingency costs consist of project contingency and axillary

facilities factors. A project contingency of 50% was utilized per client request, due to the stage of

the engineering scoping study [50, 51]. Auxiliary facilities (site development, auxiliary buildings,

off-site facilities) were neglected due to the brownfield retrofit design of existing equipment on

site [36].

The total fixed capital includes engineering/procurement, owners’, and commissioning &

vendor costs. Per client request, an engineering and procurement factor of 50% was applied to

31
account for additional engineering efforts pertaining to hydraulic and fractionator studies,

downstream equipment analysis, and simulation efforts provided by an external EPC vendor [48].

An owner cost of 20% was utilized to account for engineering and operator resources from

Imperial Oil; as the project is a brownfield retrofit, significant internal resources are required for

project execution. A commissioning and start up factor of 10% was applied, as multidisciplinary

teams will be required to complete PSSR and facility audits before unit start-up. With the addition

of factors discussed above, the total fixed capital required was estimated to be $6,196,000.

Table 7.2 Capital Cost Factor Adjustments.

Parameter Factor Total Cost
CBM Facility Bare Module Capital* $1,923,000
Process Contingency 10% $192,000
Contractual Fee 10% $192,000
CTM Facility Total Module Capital $2,308,000
Project Contingency** 50% $1,154,000
Sub Total Facility and Contingency $3,461,000
Engineering / Procurement** 50% $1,696,000
Owners' Cost 20% $692,000
Commissioning & Startup 10% $346,000
CGR Total Capital (Fixed Capital) $6,196,000
*Facility Bare Module Cost includes adjustments for CEPCI Index and Currency Exchange Rate
**Project Contingency & Engineering and Procurement percentages were given based on client
and academic advisor request [48, 36]

7.2.3 Work Included and Excluded

The total fixed capital estimated above includes both construction and installation of process

equipment required for the proposed solution. Cost adjustment factors were applied to bare module

cost include location, direct field labour, operating facility, T/A construction, overheads,

scaffolding, supporting infrastructure, process and project contingency, contractor fees,

engineering and procurement, owners and commissioning costs.

32
 The analysis for total fixed capital excluded costs associated with potential downstream cat

light ends and HCN draw equipment upgrades as these are outside the project scope per client

guidance [48]. An adjustment factor was used to account for supporting electrical infrastructure

tie-ins and modifications to permit preliminary analysis; however, electrical infrastructure was

considered out-of-scope and a more refined cost estimate should be developed.

7.3 Operating Expenses

Table 7.3 displays the incremental operating expenses incurred for the proposed solution.

The impact on OPEX for the fractionator was taken as the difference between the amount required

for the proposed solution and current operation. For this reason, several notable operating costs

are neglected, such as operating and supervisory labour, as no additional operators are required for

proposed solution operation. DB Solutions estimated current operating expenses, including factors

which were unchanged by the proposed modifications, which are contained in Appendix H.

Operating costs were estimated using a combination of utility costs per client specification and

methods outlined in Ulrich & Vasudevan [40]. The alteration of turbine CL-CT-01 operation led

to significant cost reduction as required 625# steam generation is reduced; however, the 125#

steam produced by the current operation is lost and must be produced by boilers elsewhere on site.

The net cost reduction due to changing steam requirements amounts to $224,000 annually. The

operational expense with the largest increase due to the proposed modifications is CW, which must

increase by 16% to accommodate the required cooling duty. At a cost of $0.418 per 1000 m3/h

($0.095 per 1000 USGPM), the increase in CW to the overhead condensers increases OPEX by

$2.6MM annually, representing 92% of the OPEX increase above current operation.

33
Table 7.3. Incremental Operating Expenses for Proposed Solution and Current Operation.
Item Incremental Cost Cost Increase (Savings)
625# Steam $9.62 per 1000 kg/h ($4.40 per 1000 lb/h) ($1,830,840.00)
125# Steam $7.96 per 1000 kg/h ($3.62 per 1000 lb/h) $4,669,816.21
15# Steam $7.70 per 1000 kg/h ($3.50 per 1000 lb/h) ($3,062,934.00)
Pump Electricity $0.0622 per kWh $12,260.44
CW $0.418 per 1000 m3/h ($0.095 per 1000 USGPM) $2,564,207.93
Carbon Tax $30 per tonne CO2 ($969,732.00)
Maintenance and Repairs 8% of fixed capital $495,697.69
Operating Supplies 15% of maintenance & repairs $74,354.65
Overhead 60% of op. labor, supervision, maintenance $297,418.61
Local Taxes 2% fixed capital $123,924.42
Insurance 2% of fixed capital $123,924.42
Admin Costs 25% of overhead $74,354.65
Distribution and Selling 10% of total expenses $249,809.84
Total N/A $2,822,262.85

7.4 Revenue Estimation

Revenue for product streams were estimated using economic product pricing data provided

in Table 7.4 below by IOL for $55USD ($73.15CAD) WTI [52]. West Texas Intermediate prices

were given in USD and converted to CAD for project analysis. Annualized additional revenue due

to proposed solution implementation was estimated at $28.9MM, primarily due to the

maximization of HCN production, which is the most profitable stream from the fractionator based

on the data provided.

Table 7.4. Fractionator Product Prices for Summer and Winter at $55 USD ($73.15 CAD) WTI.

Summer Pricing Winter Pricing

Product Streams
%WTI $USD/bbl ($CAD) %WTI $USD/bbl ($CAD)
Wet Gas 30% $16.50 ($21.95) 30% $16.50 ($21.95)
LCN/LPD 125% $68.75 ($91.44) 100% $55.00 ($71.15)
HCN 130% $71.50 ($95.10) 110% $60.50 ($80.47)
LCGO 105% $57.75 ($76.81) 95% $52.25 ($69.49)
ICGO 85% $46.75 ($62.18) 85% $46.75 ($62.18)
HCGO 85% $46.75 (62.18) 85% $46.75 ($62.18)
CFB 30% $16.50 ($21.95) 30% $16.50 ($21.95)

34
7.5 Project Management Schedule

7.5.1 Workforce Labor Profile

Figure 7.2 displays the estimated monthly engineering, procurement, and trades manhour

requirements for the duration of the project. The error bars reflect the given resource contingency

of 30%. The total calculated manhours required for engineering, procurement, and trades were

5770, 1696, and 1310 hours, respectively, while engineering is expected to take 90% of the

allocated capital for engineering and procurement [36]. Engineering resources will be required

primarily for the FEED and detailed engineering stages of the project (months 11-25), while

limited hours are required after equipment has been selected and ordered (months 26-40) to

respond to vendor RFI and finalize drawing packages. The multidisciplinary project team will

include mechanical, chemical, electrical, and civil engineers to complete discipline-specific work

packages throughout project execution. Engineering will also be responsible for project

management, cost estimation, and contractor oversight. Procurement resources are required for

later stages of detailed engineering and procurement phases (months 18-40). The specific role of

‘buyer’ will be required to complete requisitions, purchase orders, and commence bid evaluations;

additionally, a ‘receiver’ will be required to engage with vendors, ensure equipment delivery is on

schedule, and perform quality control. Trade resources consist of site personnel, construction

workers, electricians, welders, and pipe fitters required for installation. Trade manhours will be

required during the execution stage of the project (months 40-42) to ensure that equipment is

installed and properly commissioned during the 2023 T/A.

35
Figure 7.2. Engineering, Procurement and Trade Resources for Project Duration.

7.5.2 Capital Expenditure Profile

Figure 7.3 shows the CAPEX burn rate on a quarterly basis, as well as cumulative capital

spending for the duration of the project. Early expenditures for the project (Q1 2020 – Q2 2021)

primarily consist of engineering and procurement costs. Within the detailed engineering phase (Q3

– Q4 2021), project spending will rise as engineering design and procurement of process

equipment is performed. As equipment is being procured (Q1 2022 – Q1 2023), detailed

engineering will be completed, and procurement specialists will engage vendors. As the project is

executed during T/A (Q1/Q2 2023), expenditures will increase to include direct field labour,

contractor fees, overheads, trade and construction manhours, and commissioning/start-up. Hourly

rates for engineering, procurement, and trades were taken as $200, $100, and $120, respectively,

per APEGA and CEA consulting rates [53, 54].

36
Figure 7.3. Quarterly and Cumulative Capital Expenditure Burn Rate for Project Duration.

7.6 Plan for Financing

Since the proposed solution will consist of only internal IOL capital expenditure, bond and

equity issuance is not required; however, for the project to be sanctioned, it must meet internal

metric requirements (IRR>30%) [55]. Upon approval, the project will be financed through

internally generated cash flow, drawing from the approved annual capital budget and spending

programs for 2020-2023. For the duration of the project, internal IOL stage gate deliverables will

be required for each phase in order to access allocated capital for further project execution. It is

recommended that a more refined cost estimate (Class 3, 4, 5) is developed for each phase of the

project to ensure that proper capital is allocated for spending.

7.7 Income Tax Table

Based on the analysis completed, the debottlenecking project is a net positive project that

generates revenue on an annualized basis. Table 7.5 outlines the income tax that will be paid over

the 25-year evaluation of the project. The process equipment to be installed was classified as Class

37
43. As such, it was provided a Capital Cost Allowance (CCA) with depreciation rates of 15% for

the first year and 30% per year for the remainder of the project [56]. CCA analysis was preformed

and provided tax relief on annualized cash flows. Implementation of the proposed modifications

will provide the government with an additional $228.9MM, undiscounted, in taxes over the 25-

year project life.

Table 7.5. Cash Flow, Capital Cost Allowance, and Taxes Paid for Project Duration.

CCA Capital Cash Flow

Project Depreciated Taxable
Cash Flow Depreciation Cost Taxes After
Year Value Income
Rate Allowance Taxes

0 -$6,196,221 $6,196,221 N/A N/A $0 $0 -$6,196,221

1 $26,650,242 $5,266,788 15% $929,433.16 $25,720,809 -$6,944,618 $19,705,624
2 $27,183,247 $3,686,752 30% $1,580,036 $25,603,211 -$6,912,867 $20,270,380
3 $27,726,912 $2,580,726 30% $1,106,025 $26,620,887 -$7,187,639 $20,539,273
4 $28,281,450 $1,806,508 30% $774,218 $27,507,232 -$7,426,953 $20,854,497
5 $28,847,079 $1,264,556 30% $541,952 $28,305,127 -$7,642,384 $21,204,695
6 $29,424,021 $885,189 30% $379,367 $29,044,654 -$7,842,057 $21,581,964
7 $30,012,501 $619,632 30% $265,557 $29,746,945 -$8,031,675 $21,980,826
8 $30,612,751 $433,743 30% $185,890 $30,426,862 -$8,215,253 $22,397,499
9 $31,225,006 $303,620 30% $130,123 $31,094,883 -$8,395,619 $22,829,388
10 $31,849,506 $212,534 30% $91,086 $31,758,420 -$8,574,774 $23,274,733
11 $32,486,497 $148,774 30% $63,760 $32,422,736 -$8,754,139 $23,732,358
12 $33,136,226 $104,142 30% $44,632 $33,091,594 -$8,934,730 $24,201,496
13 $33,798,951 $72,899 30% $31,242 $33,767,708 -$9,117,281 $24,681,670
14 $34,474,930 $51,029 30% $21,870 $34,453,060 -$9,302,326 $25,172,604
15 $35,164,429 $35,721 30% $15,309 $35,149,120 -$9,490,262 $25,674,166
16 $35,867,717 $25,004 30% $10,716 $35,857,001 -$9,681,390 $26,186,327
17 $36,585,072 $17,503 30% $7,501 $36,577,570 -$9,875,944 $26,709,128
18 $37,316,773 $12,252 30% $5,251 $37,311,522 -$10,074,111 $27,242,662
19 $38,063,108 $8,577 30% $3,676 $38,059,433 -$10,276,047 $27,787,062
20 $38,824,371 $6,004 30% $2,573 $38,821,798 -$10,481,885 $28,342,485
21 $39,600,858 $4,202 30% $1,801 $39,599,057 -$10,691,745 $28,909,113
22 $40,392,875 $2,942 30% $1,261 $40,391,614 -$10,905,736 $29,487,139
23 $41,200,733 $2,059 30% $883 $41,199,850 -$11,123,960 $30,076,773
24 $42,024,747 $1,441 30% $618 $42,024,130 -$11,346,515 $30,678,232
25 $42,865,242 $1,009 30% $432 $42,864,810 -$11,573,499 $31,291,744

38
7.8 Cash Flow Analysis

Figure 7.4 shows cumulative discounted cash flow for the debottlenecking project evaluated

over a 25-year period. This timeframe was chosen since the project is considered long-term and

the equipment modifications will remain in place for the foreseeable future. The analysis assumes

a discount rate of 10%, inflation rate of 2%, and a corporate tax rate of 27% [57]. The net present

value for the project was determined to be $201.4MM based on a WTI feed cost of $55USD/bbl.

The project was found to pay back invested capital within a 4-month period (122 days). Internal

rate of return (IRR) was calculated as 320%, which is comparable to other refinery debottlenecking

initiatives, where short payback periods are common [21, 58, 59, 60, 61]. Since the project IRR is

greater than the IOL hurdle rate of 30%, the proposed project was determined to be economically

feasible.

Figure 7.4. Cumulative Cash Flow for the 25 Year Project Life.

7.9 Sensitivity Analysis

Figure 7.5 displays a sensitivity analysis for the project, which explores the effects of various

parameters on NPV. The sensitivity ranges were chosen to reflect likely upper and lower bounds

for industry and operating conditions. While the project provides net positive cash flow on an

39
annual basis, the evaluation shows that feed costs (WTI) and natural gas prices effected NPV the

most. The range for natural gas was chosen based on information obtained from the EIA and AER

to represent a 95% confidence interval for prices over the project lifetime [62, 63]. Power prices

were taken from local averages as $0.062 per kWh and the range was set to represent both peak

and low pricing scenarios [64]. CAPEX ranges were taken as the accuracy of a Class 4 estimate

(+50%/-25%) to represent the accuracy of this scoping study. The carbon tax was also taken into

consideration, where, based on current federal regulations, the tax is fixed at $30/tonne; however,

with potential policy changes, this value could range from $0/tonne to $50/tonne [6, 65]. It was

found that higher natural gas prices and carbon tax increased project NPV due to OPEX savings

from lower 625# steam generation, although an increase in carbon tax would negatively impact

overall refinery profitability.

Figure 7.5. Sensitivity Analysis for Parameters Affecting Net Present Value.

Figure 7.6 displays further sensitivity analysis completed with respect to price of WTI using

a wider price range Based on product stream prices provided from IOL, it was found that higher

WTI yielded an increased NPV for the project. However, as the WTI price increases, many

operating and feed costs for the refinery also change, including product sales pricing. Therefore,

40
these results may not accurately indicate higher revenue streams for the Strathcona refinery as a

whole [48].

Figure 7.6. Net Present Value Relative to Varying WTI Prices.

7.10 Discussion of Economics

The economic analysis performed for the debottlenecking project yielded a positive net cash

flow for the 25-year period; providing merit to complete a more refined cost analysis, with accurate

profit margins for revenue estimation. However, it should be noted that the capital cost and

operating expense are preliminary estimates using limited data from the Strathcona refinery. As

noted above, a supporting infrastructure cost adjustment was utilized for additional electrical

equipment, for which costing was out of scope. As such, capital cost overruns for electrical

infrastructure and modifications to downstream equipment may affect the economics of the

project.

The project was estimated to pay back capital invested within a 4-month period and generate

a 320% internal rate of return in comparison to the “do nothing” case of maintaining current

fractionator operation. The sensitivity analysis indicated that the parameter with the largest impact

41
on NPV was the feed cost ($WTI/barrel). From the evaluation completed, the proposed project

meets internal IOL metrics (IRR>30%) and warrants further investigation.

8. Safety and Risk Analysis

Multiple safety and risk analyses were performed on the FCC Fractionator to identify process

hazards, assess risks, and determine safeguards to reduce the likelihood of hazardous events. The

PFD based checklist, What-If analysis, Hazard and Operability Study, (HAZOP), Dow Fire and

Explosion Index (F&EI), Dow Chemical Exposure Index (CEI), risk matrix, and plot plan are

displayed in Appendix G.

8.1 Risk Control

All process equipment will be designed in compliance with applicable ASME, API, and

ABSA safety standards, in addition to local and federal regulations [2, 66, 67]. Construction

operations will be performed in compliance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act [68].

Process equipment and piping are monitored using level controllers, flowmeters, and pressure and

temperature transmitters as the FCC Fractionator handles vapours and liquids at high temperatures

and flow rates. Process monitoring and safety instrumented systems (SIS) are installed to address

process upsets and place the plant into a safe state when needed to prevent the occurrence of

hazardous events. Pressure safety valves (PSV) are installed to provide overpressure protection for

vessels and heat exchangers in accordance to API 520, 521, and 526 standards [67, 69, 70, 71].

Although already in operation, DB Solutions performed PSV sizing for O/H condenser CC-E-

13/14 to address the thermal expansion of water in the event the inlet and outlet of the CW side of

the heat exchanger is blocked. Flanges with spectacle blinds are installed to isolate process

equipment for maintenance as shown in the P&ID. The PSV sizing and P&ID for CC-E-13/14 are

contained in Appendix F.

42
8.2 What-If Analysis

A What-If Analysis was performed for all major process equipment at the FCC Fractionator

as six nodes: Fractionator CC-T-01, process vessels, piping, fluid movers, heat exchangers, and

miscellaneous. The What-If analysis determined that a top process hazard is the uncontrolled

release of vapor and liquid hydrocarbons due to corrosion, fouling, and overpressure in process

vessels and piping. An uncontrolled release is a fire hazard due to multiple nearby sources of

ignition such as the FCC Regenerator and fired heaters. A fire near vessels carrying hydrocarbons

poses a boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion (BLEVE) hazard. To reduce fire and explosion

hazards, the following safeguards are utilized: level controllers, pressure and temperature

transmitters, flowmeters, pressure safety valves, fire and gas monitoring systems, operator

training, detailed start-up and shutdown procedures, and corrosion monitoring procedures such as

hydrotesting and non-destructive testing (NDT).

8.3 Hazard and Operability Study

A HAZOP was performed on the Fractionator Overhead Condenser CC-E-13/14. Based on

the HAZOP, safeguards that will mitigate CC-E-13/14 risks are installation of a pressure safety

valve on the CW side of the condenser to prevent overpressure from thermal expansion, installation

of a check valve to prevent reverse flow back into the Fractionator, addition of temperature

controllers and operator intervention to address process upsets, installing bypass valves in case of

control valve failure, and tube inspection procedures to identify potential tube leaks. Additionally,

if process upsets and shutdowns occur during the winter, the exchanger will be monitored to ensure

CW does not freeze and cause damage to the condenser or piping.

43
8.4 Dow Chemical Exposure Index

Among all compounds in the fractionator feed, the greatest health hazards were associated

with carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S). H2S is a by-product of hydrocarbon

extraction and is extracted as sour water from the FCC Fractionator. CO exists as a gas and

originates from the FCC Catalyst Regenerator during the combustion of coke. The Dow Chemical

Exposure Index (CEI) was used to approximate the hazard distance for both H2S and CO, which

is summarized in Table 8.1. Both compounds are fatal at low concentrations, yielding a large radius

of exposure. As such, it is imperative for all on-site personnel to wear personal CO and H2S

monitoring systems. In addition, gas monitoring and alarm systems are installed surrounding the

fractionator to alert personnel of leaks, and CEI will be used to aid in emergency evacuation

planning.

Table 8.1. CEI Properties and Hazard Distances of Hydrogen Sulfide and Carbon Monoxide.

Compound M.W. ERPG-1 ERPG-2 ERPG-3 𝐻𝐷𝐸𝑅𝑃𝐺−1 𝐻𝐷𝐸𝑅𝑃𝐺−2 𝐻𝐷𝐸𝑅𝑃𝐺−3 CEI

(g/mol) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
(lb/mol)
2883m 167m 91m
H2S 34.1 0.1 30 100 16.6
(9459ft) (548ft) (299m)
498m 376m 319m
CO 28.0 200 350 500 37.6
(1634ft) (1234ft) (1047ft)

8.5 Dow Fire and Explosion Index

The Dow Fire and Explosion Index (F&EI) was used to estimate the explosion radii in the

event of a hydrocarbon release originating from the fractionator and subsequent explosion. The

fractionator was chosen since the tower contains large amounts of flammable vapour and liquid

hydrocarbons at high temperatures, and due to its proximity to the FCC reactor and regenerator,

which are potential ignition sources. The degree of hazard in a hydrocarbon release in the

44
fractionator is categorized as high with an F&EI score of 129. To mitigate the impact of a fire

and/or explosion, water deluge systems are installed, and multiple access roads allow emergency

vehicles to quickly enter and exit the facility to aid with evacuation and firefighting efforts.

9. Environmental Analysis

It is imperative that the suggested modifications abide with applicable environment and

process related acts and codes set out by the Alberta government and delegated administrative

organizations. The following acts and codes were identified as relevant to the project: Alberta

Ambient Air Quality Objectives (AAAQO) [72]; Alberta Utilities Commission Act (AUCA) [73];

AEP Rule 012: Noise Control [74]; Pressure Equipment Safety Regulation (ASCA) [75]; Oil and

Gas Conservation Act (OGCA) [76]; Alberta Environment Protection and Enhancement Act

(EPEA) [77].

The environmental analysis investigates the impacts of the proposed solution in terms of

carbon emissions. Additionally, an investigation of a worst-case scenario involving a loss of

hydrocarbon containment from the main fractionator was performed. Appendix I contains details

regarding the carbon emission analysis and loss of containment modelling systems.

One notable waste stream associated with fractionator operation is the CO2 generated during

steam production. It was assumed that natural gas was used as boiler fuel and underwent complete

combustion to create CO2, water vapour, and heat. The reduction in 625# steam flow to turbine

CL-CT-01 by 21,590 kg/h (47,500 lb/h) lowers annual CO2 emissions by approximately 32,320

tonnes. The E-factor, a ratio of waste produced per product produced, was utilized to quantify the

environmental impact of this proposal. Within the oil and gas industry, the overall E-factor is

typically around 0.1 [78]. The E-factor for fractionator operation dropped from 0.12 to 0.069

resulting from the proposed modifications, indicating significant environmental benefit.

45
 Additionally, operation of the overhead turbine and compressor generates a significant

amount of noise, especially during start-up and shutdown. It is expected that as compressor RPM

is increased to accommodate increased flow, more noise will be generated. There currently exist

several mufflers (CL-MU-01/09) for sound suppression during start-up and regular operation to

ensure noise is below maximum allowable levels [79]. Furthermore, the compressor and turbine

are located inside a building that will provide additional noise insulation to abide by AEP Rule

012; however, hearing protection is required for personnel inside the structure [48].

Refineries inherently contain threats that can be detrimental to the surrounding population

and environment. To better understand the consequences, a study was performed to demonstrate

how a loss of containment originating from CC-T-01 could affect the environment and nearby

communities. Figure 8.1 exhibits the predicted dispersion of light hydrocarbons on a partially

cloudy day with a 14 km/h westward wind. Under these conditions, the dispersed vapour may

reach the nearby community of Gold Bar with a concentration of at least 960 ppm, which may

induce mild irritation for the human body [80]. In areas where the concentration is greater than

5,760 ppm, flame pockets may form. This area extends into Tiger Goldstick Park, which is of

particular concern. Additionally, the hydrocarbon concentration on refinery grounds would be well

within the lower and upper explosive limits to create a vapour cloud explosion if ignited in

congested spaces. Uncontained hydrocarbons can intervene with biological environmental

processes for years. Hydrocarbons that absorb into the soil can cause pH levels to fluctuate,

influencing the absorption rates of nutrients to plants, decreasing the degradation of plant life [81].

This investigation emphasizes the severity of the consequences through a worst-case scenario if a

hydrocarbon loss of containment were to arise. Furthermore, it demonstrates the importance of

46
following regulation benchmarks to ensure inherently safer design and the installation of

preventative and mitigative control measures.

Figure 8.1. Predicted Dispersion of Light Hydrocarbons Using ALOHA and MARPLOT.

10. Net Social Benefit Analysis

Environmental, economic, and societal factors were evaluated to ensure that the project

would be worth pursuing and was within the publics interest. Appendix I contains a detailed net

social benefit analysis outlining the impact this project has on society as well as an impact table.

The proposed solution has not only provided economic benefit to IOL but has also reduced carbon

emissions via reduction of steam generation in boilers. Through an environmental perspective, the

reduction of steam requirements has a positive impact as CO2 emissions are expected to be reduced

by 32,320 tonnes per year. Resulting from proposed solution implementation, the E-factor

decreases from 0.12 to 0.069. Although this value does not represent the entirety of the refinery,

the reduction in the E-factor suggests a net positive benefit with respect to the environment.

The economic impact of the recommended modifications were evaluated, where it was

determined to have positive NPV, providing economic incentive for IOL to pursue this project.

47
The alterations are expected to take place in the year 2023, where 1,310 working hours will be

created for tradesmen. Furthermore, the implementation of this project may warrant further

debottlenecking projects for downstream equipment, which may provide further future benefit.

From a societal perspective, the substantial economic benefit IOL is presented with can

indirectly influence the quality of life in Alberta. Over the 25-year economic analysis, it was

estimated that IOL will contribute an additional $228.8MM, undiscounted, to provincial and

federal tax revenues, adding to the overall Canadian GDP [82].

Potential drawbacks with the proposed solution include both an increase in energy and CW

consumption. Additionally, hazards associated with increasing production rates may evoke

concerns within neighboring communities, such as Gold Bar. To lower the likelihood of a low

probability-high consequence loss of containment event extra control measures may be employed

to ensure safe operations and existing downstream equipment would require re-rating to determine

if larger quantities of material can be handled.

11. Conclusions and Recommendations

DB Solutions was assigned the task of debottlenecking IOL’s Strathcona refinery FCC

fractionator O/Hs to allow for increased throughput and the economic optimization of product

placement. Accurate simulation of current fractionator operating conditions during summer and

winter timeframes allowed for subsequent modification, simulation, and evaluation of several

potential solutions, where upgrading CC-T-01 O/H equipment was determined to best fulfill

project objectives.

Firstly, turbine CL-CT-01 operating conditions were adjusted to expand 625# steam to 15#,

permitting increased shaft power to the wet gas compressor CL-C-01 while satisfying 625# steam

hydraulic limitations. LPD pump (CC-P-17/18) motors must be replaced with similar, but larger

48
motors to support increased product flows. The additional feed to the fractionator coincides with

additional cooling duty via the O/H condensers; this will be provided by increased CW flow, where

a booster pump and spare (CC-P-X1/X2) will be installed to ensure the necessary flow is achieved.

Lastly, a vane-type inlet disengagement device will be installed on each inlet to distillate drum

CC-D-03 to minimize entrainment and liquid carryover to the wet gas compressor, reducing unit

downtime and flaring of light-end products. Implementation of the proposed solution would

increase the maximum feed rate to the FCC reactor from approximately 70 KBPD to 77 KBPD.

Accounting for an average volume swell of 14% in the FCC during summer and winter operation,

the fractionator will separate approximately 87 KBPD of products.

The proposed solution provides noteworthy economic, environmental, safety, and societal

benefits, as justified below. Based on a 25-year NPV of $201.3MM and payback period of 122

days, this project has demonstrated economically feasibility. Additionally, the project IRR of

320% surpasses the IOL hurdle rate of 30%, warranting further investigation and evaluation. The

project provides environmental benefits through an annual reduction in CO2 emissions of 32,320

tonnes due to lower 625# steam requirements. Furthermore, the proposed modifications and

additions adhere to pertinent regulations as directed in the AAAQO, AUCA, AEP Rule 012, and

ASCA, among others. From a safety perspective, the project involves the use of well-understood

industry technologies and is recognized for maintaining all health and safety risks within an

acceptable level This project is socially acceptable as it was estimated to generate $228.8MM in

tax revenue over the 25-year project lifetime, improving the living standards of Albertan and

Canadian citizens. As this project satisfies all economic, environmental, safety, and societal

constraints, DB Solutions recommends further consideration of this project, specifically regarding

its impact on downstream unit operations, which were out-of-scope for this project. The following

49
consists of summarized recommendations, which would permit an increase of approximately 10%

in FCC unit feed while maintaining product specifications, if implemented:

• Verify upstream and downstream constraints from CC-T-01, as well as tower specific

considerations (i.e. separation efficiency), prior to project implementation

• Contract a third-party EPC company such as Koch-Glitsch to simulate the column under

proposed solution operating conditions with equipment modifications

• Reconfigure turbine CL-CT-01 operating conditions to expand 625# steam to 15# and

reduce the 625# steam supply to satisfy compressor demands

• Upgrade LPD pump (CC-P-17/18) motors to overcome existing amp restrictions and

support the increased flow requirements

• Install additional CW booster pump with spare (CC-P-X1/X2) to support increased

cooling duty requirements

• Install a vane-type Schoepentoeter PlusTM inlet disengagement device on each distillate

drum (CC-D-03) inlet to improve phase separation efficiency, reduce compressor

downtime, and reduce flaring of column products

50
References:
(Items 83 onwards were used for background information – not cited in report)

[1] Audubon, "Debottlenecking: What is it and how it can help optimize downstream
processes," Audubon, 21 August 2014. [Online]. Available:
https://auduboncompanies.com/debottlenecking-what-it-is-and-how-it-can-help-optimize-
downstream-processes/. [Accessed 7 April 2019].

[2] Alberta Boilers Safety Association, "ABSA Acts, Regulations, and Codes," 2006. [Online].
Available: https://www.absa.ca/about-absa/absa-information/acts-regulations-and-codes/.
[Accessed 7 April 2019].

[3] Alberta Energy Regulator, "Directive 007," 17 February 2016. [Online]. Available:
https://www.aer.ca/documents/directives/directive007.pdf. [Accessed 7 April 2019].

[4] Alberta Energy Regulator, "Directive 071," 2 February 2017. [Online]. Available:
https://www.aer.ca/documents/directives/Directive071.pdf. [Accessed 7 April 2019].

[5] Alberta Energy Regulator, "Directive 038," 16 February 2007. [Online]. Available:
https://www.aer.ca/documents/directives/directive007.pdf. [Accessed 7 April 2019].

[6] R. Murphy, "Carbon Pricing in Alberta," Fraser Institute, 27 February 2019. [Online].
Available: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/carbon-pricing-in-alberta.

[7] Government of Canada, "Market Snapshot: Canada’s refining capacity increases, despite
fewer refineries," National Energy Board, 11 April 2018. [Online]. Available:
http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrg/ntgrtd/mrkt/snpsht/2018/04-02cndrfnngcpct-eng.html.
[Accessed 7 April 219].

[8] Government of Canada, "Petroleum products facts," Natural Resources Canada, 21 August
2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/facts/petroleum/20065.

51
[9] Oil Sands Magazine, "Canadian Refineries," Oil Sands Magazine, 31 July 2017. [Online].
Available: https://www.oilsandsmagazine.com/projects/canadian-refineries. [Accessed 7
April 2019].

[10] TransMountain, "Piping System," TransMountain, [Online]. Available:

https://www.transmountain.com/pipeline-system. [Accessed 7 April 2019].

[11] "World Oil Outlook," OPEC: Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, October
2017. [Online]. Available:
www.opec.org/opec_web/flipbook/WOO2017/WOO2017/assets/common/downloads/WO
O%202017.pdf.

[12] R. Sadeghbeigi, "Fluid Catalytic Cracking Handbook," Elsevier, 2012. [Online]. Available:
https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Mu2I7g0HVt0C&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=fcc
+fractionator&ots=fGgv5Al4zH&sig=FFd1JDxiEna6L_eaB01uy5V7on0#v=onepage&q=
fcc%.

[13] "Canadian Refineries," Oil Sands Magazine, 31 July 2017. [Online]. Available:
www.oilsandsmagazine.com/projects/canadian-refineries.

[14] S. Parkash, "Petroleum Fuels Manufacturing Handbook," in Petroleum Fuels

Manufacturing Handbook, McGraw Hill, 2010, p. 159.

[15] AAVOS International, "Slop Oil," AAVOS International, 2017. [Online]. Available:
https://aavos.eu/glossary/slop-oil/. [Accessed 7 April 2019].

[16] J. Westland, "The Triple Constraint in Project Management: Time, Scope & Cost,"
ProjectManager.com, Inc., 22 Mar 2018. [Online]. Available:
https://www.projectmanager.com/blog/triple-constraint-project-management-time-scope-
cost. [Accessed 2 April 2019].

[17] J. Forrest, "There’s light at the end of the pipeline for Canadian oil producers: Forrest,"
Trusted Energy Intelligence, 31 October 2018. [Online]. Available:

52
 https://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2018/10/theres-light-end-pipeline-canadian-oil-
producers-forrest/. [Accessed 7 April 2019].

[18] S. Kornik, "Edmonton Refinery Flare Lights Up Night Sky," Global News, 13 January 2019.
[Online]. Available: https://globalnews.ca/news/4842987/edmonton-imperial-oil-
strathcona-refinery-flare/. [Accessed 10 February 2019].

[19] B. Ladd, "Strippers," University of Michigan - Visual Encyclopedia of Chemical

Engineering, [Online]. Available:
http://encyclopedia.che.engin.umich.edu/Pages/SeparationsChemical/Strippers/Strippers.h
tml. [Accessed 31 March 2019].

[20] D. F. Schneider, "Debottlenecking Options and Optimization," 1997. [Online]. Available:

http://www.stratusengr.com/Articles/DebottleOptions.pdf.

[21] G. R. Martin and B. E. Cheatham, "Keeping Down the Cost of Revamp Investment," 1999.
[Online]. Available: https://www.revamps.com/articles/keeping-down-the-cost-of-revamp-
investment/.

[22] M. Unger, Insdustry Advisor Meeting #1, Edmonton, 2019.

[23] Z.-Y. Liu and M. Jobson, "The Effect of Operating Pressure on Distillation Column
Throughput," Science Direct, 1999. [Online]. Available:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009813549980204X. [Accessed 31
March 2019].

[24] C. L. Smith, "3.1. Pressure Control," in Distillation Control - An Engineering Perspective,

Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons, 2012, pp. 137-142.

[25] H. Chan and J. R. Fair, "Prediction of Point Efficiencies on Sieve Trays," 1984. [Online].
Available: Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev., 23, 814 – 819 (1984).

[26] G. X. Chen and K. T. Chuang, "Prediction of Point Efficiency for Sieve Trays in
Distillation," 1993. [Online]. Available: Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 32, 701-708 (1993).

53
[27] M. Bothamley, "Gas/Liquid Separators: Quantifying Separation Performance (Part 1),"
Society of Petroleum Engineers, 22 July 2013. [Online]. Available:
https://www.spe.org/en/print-article/?art=396. [Accessed 28 March 2019].

[28] Sulzer, "Gas/Liquid Separation Technology," Sulzer Chemtech, April 2018. [Online].
Available: https://www.sulzer.com/-/media/files/products/separation-technology/feed-
inlet-devices/gas_liquid_separation_technology.ashx.

[29] Sulzer Chemtech, "New Design Features Enhance Separation Performance," Digital
Refining, 2015. [Online]. Available:
https://www.digitalrefining.com/literature/1000298,New_design_features_enhance_separa
tion_performance.html#.XJz7IJhKhyx. [Accessed 28 March 2019].

[30] Y. Wei, "Compositional Simulation Using an Advanced Peng-Robinson Equation of State,"

One Petro: Society of Petroleum Engineers, January 2011. [Online]. Available:
www.onepetro.org/download/conference-paper/SPE-141898-MS?id=conference-
paper%2FSPE-141898-MS.

[31] M. A. Satyro and H. W. Yarranton, "Expanded Fluid-Based Viscosity Correlation for

Hydrocarbons Using an Equation of State," Elsevier - Fluid Phase Equilibria, 5 July 2010.
[Online]. Available: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378381210003456.

[32] O. Diaz, "Modeling the Phase Behavior of Heavy Oil and Solvent Mixtures," Elsevier -
Fluid Phase Equilibria, 23 February 2011. [Online]. Available:
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037838121100094X.

[33] Virtual Materials Group, VMGSim User Manual - Equations of State, 2016.

[34] A. Solano and H. Loria, "Oil Database Tool," VMGSim, 2014. [Online]. Available:
www.virtualmaterials.com/Oil-Database-Tool.

[35] J. Lebert, Industry Advisor Meeting #2, Edmonton, 2019.

[36] F. Vagi, Team 4 Advisor Meetings, Edmonton, 2019.

54
[37] "Overview of Sulfidation Corrosion," Inspectioneering, 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://inspectioneering.com/tag/sulfidation.

[38] Project Management Institute, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge:
PMBOK Guide, Newtown Square: Independent Publishers Group, 2017.

[39] Z. Tian, Eng M 530: Engineering Project Management - Lecture Notes, Edmonton:
University of Alberta Engineering Department, 2019.

[40] G. Ulrich and P. Vasudevan, Chemical Engineering Process Design and Economics: A
Practical Guide, Durham: Process Pub, 2004.

[41] "CEPCI," Chemical Engineering Essentials for the CPI Professional, January 2019.
[Online]. Available: https://www.chemengonline.com/tag/cepci/.

[42] "Monthly average foreign exchange rates in Canadian dollars," Bank of Canada, March
2019. [Online]. Available:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=3310016301#timeframe.

[43] K. M. Guthrie, in Capital Cost Estimating, Chem. Eng., 1969, pp. 114-142.

[44] D. W. Green and R. H. Perry, Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook, New York: McGraw-
Hill, 2008.

[45] R. Smith, "Capital Cost for Retrofit," in Chemical Process: Design and Integration, John
Wiley & Sons, 2005, pp. 23-24.

[46] R. A. Cardello, "Determining the Proper Size of Manufacturing Projects - The Engineering
Economist," Esso Research and Engineering Company, 23 March 2007. [Online].
Available: www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00137916308928685?needAccess=true.

[47] B. Peachey, ChE 464 Design Project, Edmonton, 2018.

[48] J. Lebert, "Industry Advisor Meeting #3," Edmonton, 2019.

[49] M. Jamieson, ChE 465: Capital Cost Estimating Lecture Notes, Edmonton, 2019.

55
[50] P. Christensen and L. Dysert, "COST ESTIMATE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM – AS
APPLIED IN ENGINEERING, PROCUREMENT, AND CONSTRUCTION FOR," 2
February 2005. [Online]. Available:
http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/MMD/MARP/permits/documents/MK006RE_20100917_St
_Anthony_Closure_Cost_Estimate_Attachment3.pdf.

[51] J. K. Hollmann, "IMPROVE YOUR CONTINGENCY ESTIMATES FOR MORE

REALISTIC PROJECT BUDGETS," Chemical Engineering Essentials for the CPI
Professional, 1 December 2014. [Online]. Available:
https://www.chemengonline.com/improve-your-contingency-estimates-for-more-realistic-
project-budgets/?printmode=1.

[52] J. Lebert, Team 4 - Product Incentives, 2019.

[53] M. El Daly, "The Value of Professional Services 2018," APEGA, 2018. [Online]. Available:
https://www.apega.ca/assets/PDFs/salary-survey-highlights.pdf.

[54] CEA, "2019 Consulting Engineers Rate Guideline," Consulting Engineers of Alberta, 2019.
[Online]. Available: https://www.cea.ca/files/Rate_guide/Rate%20Guide%20--
%202019.pdf.

[55] M. Unger, Team 4 - Fractionator Feed Specifications & Proposed Solution Criteria
Questions, 2019.

[56] "CCA Classes," Government of Canada - Canada Revenue Agency, 17 April 2018. [Online].
Available: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/businesses/topics/sole-
proprietorships-partnerships/report-business-income-expenses/claiming-capital-cost-
allowance/classes.html.

[57] "Historical Data - Inflation," Bank of Canada, 31 December 2018. [Online]. Available:
https://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/indicators/capacity-and-inflation-
pressures/inflation/historical-data/.

56
[58] G. P. Rangaiah, "Chemical Process Retrofitting and Revamping: Techniques and
Applications," John Wiley & Sons, 2016.

[59] D. Remesat, "Improving Performance Through Low-Cost Modification of Tower Internals,"

2010. [Online]. Available: http://www.koch-
glitsch.com/Document%20Library/Improving-performance-PTQ-Q3-2010.pdf.

[60] C. von Linde Strasse, "FCC Upgrade Solutions for a Dynamic Marketplace," The Linde
Group, 2013. [Online]. Available: file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/C86-20-4%20-
%20KMC%20TMEP%20Project%20Evaluation%20FINAL%20combined%20optimized
%2027%20May-15_Part9_Part1%20-%20A4Q1U5.pdf.

[61] T. Berntsson, L. Elmeroth, J. Algehed and E. Hektor, "Towards a Sustainable Oil Refinery:
Pre-study for Larger Co-operation Projects," Chalmers EnergiCentrum - CEC, January
2008. [Online]. Available: http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/69752.pdf.

[62] "Annual Energy Outlook 2019 with projections to 2050," EIA - Energy Information
Administration, 24 January 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/aeo2019.pdf.

[63] "Natural Gas Prices: AECO-C Price," Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), July 2018.
[Online]. Available: https://www.aer.ca/providing-information/data-and-reports/statistical-
reports/aeco-c.

[64] "Current Rates," Alberta Utilities Commission, 2019 April. [Online]. Available:
http://www.auc.ab.ca/Pages/current-rates-electric.aspx.

[65] "Climate Carbon Pricing," Government of Alberta, 2018. [Online]. Available:

https://www.alberta.ca/climate-carbon-pricing.aspx.

[66] American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, New
York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2015.

[67] "Pressure-relieving and Depressurizing Systems: API Standard 521," American Petroleum
Institute (API), January 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.fakels.ru/wp-

57
 content/uploads/2017/08/api_std_521_2014_6th_edition_pressure_relieving_and_depress
u.pdf.

[68] Government of Alberta, "Occupational Health and Safety Act," 1 June 2018. [Online].
Available:
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=O02P1.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=97807798
00865&display=html. [Accessed 17 May 2019].

[69] D. A. Crowl and S. A. Tipler, "Sizing Pressure Relief Devices," AIChE, October 2013.
[Online]. Available: https://www.aiche.org/sites/default/files/cep/20131068_r.pdf.

[70] American Petroleum Institute, Sizing, Selection, and Installation of Pressure-relieving

Devices in Refineries: API Standard 520, Washington, D.C: American Petroleum Institute
(API), 2008.

[71] American Petroleum Institute, Flanged Steel Pressure Relief Valves: API Standard 526,
Washington, D.C: American Petroleum Institute (API), 2002.

[72] Alberta Environment & Parks (AEP), "Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives and
Guidelines Summary," Alberta Government, January 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/0d2ad470-117e-410f-ba4f-
aa352cb02d4d/resource/4ddd8097-6787-43f3-bb4a-908e20f5e8f1/download/aaqo-
summary-jan2019.pdf.

[73] Province of Alberta, "Alberta Utilities Commission Act," Alberta Queen's Printer, 1 August
2018. [Online]. Available: http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/A37P2.pdf.

[74] Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC), "Rule 012: Noise Control," 4 July 2017. [Online].
Available: http://www.auc.ab.ca/Shared%20Documents/rules/Rule012.pdf.

[75] Province of Alberta, "Pressure Equipment Safety Regulation," Alberta Queen's Printer,
2006. [Online]. Available: http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/2006_049.pdf.

58
[76] Province of Alberta, "Oil and Gas Conservation Act," Alberta Queen's Printer, 7 June 2017.
[Online]. Available: http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/O06.pdf.

[77] Province of Alberta, "Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act," Alberta Queen's
Printer, 15 December 2017. [Online]. Available:
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/acts/e12.pdf.

[78] R. Sheldon, "The E-Factor: Fifteen Years on," [Online]. Available:

https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2007/gc/b713736m. [Accessed 1 April 2019].

[79] "OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE," Government of Alberta, 1 January

2019. [Online]. Available: http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/OHS/OHS.pdf.

[80] "The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)," CDC - Center for
Disease Control, 12 December 2014. [Online]. Available:
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/111659.html.

[81] O. I. Lawrence, "Effects of Crude Oil Spillage on Soil Physico-Chemical Properties in

Ugborodo Community," International Journal of Modern Engineering Research, vol. 3, no.
6, pp. 3336-3342, 2013.

[82] Government of Canada, 31 January 2019. [Online]. Available:

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/educational-
programs/learning-about-taxes/learning-material/module-1-understanding-taxes/tax-
revenue-spent.html. [Accessed 1 April 2019].

[83] B. Kashef, E. Mustafa, H. Salah and M. Gaber, "Revamping of Crude Distillation Unit,"
2016.

[84] ConcreteNetwork, "Subgrade and Subbases for Concrete Slabs," 31 July 2018. [Online].
Available: https://www.concretenetwork.com/concrete-subgrades-subbases/. [Accessed 5
April 2019].

59
[85] Virtual Materials Group, VMGSim User Manual - Modelling of the Oil Refining Processes,
2016.

[86] D. R. Summers, "Ethylene Fractionator Revamp Results in 25% Capacity Increase," Oil &
Gas Journal, 8 October 1992. [Online]. Available:
https://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-90/issue-32/in-this-
issue/petrochemicals/ethylene-fractionator-revamp-results-in-25-capacity-increase.html.

[87] KLM Technology Group, "Process Requirements of Crude Distillation and Hydrogen
Production Units," KLM Technology Group, May 2011. [Online]. Available:
www.klmtechgroup.com/PDF/ess/PROJECT_STANDARDS_AND_SPECIFICATIONS_
hydrogen_and_crude_distillation_system_Rev01.pdf.

[88] F. Birol, "The Future of Petrochemicals," IEA: International Energy Agency, May 2018.
[Online]. Available: www.iea.org/petrochemicals/.

[89] Separation Processes, "Flash (Equilibrium) Distillation," [Online]. Available:

www.separationprocesses.com/Distillation/DT_Chp03.htm.

[90] Emerson Process Management, "Improving Fractionator Tower Performance with Process
Gas Chromatographs," Emerson, 2012. [Online]. Available:
www.emerson.com/documents/automation/application-note-improving-fractionator-tower-
performance-process-gas-chromatographs-rosemount-en-71678.pdf.

[91] J. Jones, "Cost-Effective Refinery Expansion Enables Lighter Crude While Maximizing
ULSD," KP Engineering, March 2015. [Online]. Available:
kpe.com/assets/dist/resources/AFPM-2015-Cost-Effective-Refinery-Expansion-Enables-
Lighter-tech.pdf.

[92] S. W. Golden, "FCC Main Fractionator Revamps," Hydrocarbon Processing, March 1993.
[Online]. Available: www.scribd.com/document/338561274/Main-Fractionator-Revamp.

60